Confirmed with Link: Rangers Acquire Jacob Trouba for Neal Pionk and 20th Overall Pick - Part II

[NJRangers35]

might be a dumb question, but can someone compare trouba and mcdonagh for me. i know they are different style players, but in his prime, i thought mcdonagh was a number 1 defenseman who you could win a cup with as your number 1. is trouba that caliber of player?

 

[Thirty One]

I dunno, if we build a team like the front office wants, and our second line winger is putting up 40 points, I think we've got a problem.

Blues had 4 forwards put up 40 points or more.

 

[nyr2k2]

Blues had 4 forwards put up 40 points or more.

The juggernaut Lightning had 7. They had 8 that probably would have if they played all 82. One guy had 39 in 82. So unless we're hoping for a historically good team every year, a 40-point guy will be straddling the second and third lines, or getting a lot of PP time and really thriving there.

 

[CasusBelli]

Blues had 4 forwards put up 40 points or more.

I figure we need at least one PPG (or close to PPG) player, three 60-point players (including all PPG players) and six 40-point players (including the preceding), if we want to be conventionally competitive. This year’s Blues team was an anomaly on so many levels.

 

[CasusBelli]

The juggernaut Lightning had 7. They had 8 that probably would have if they played all 82. One guy had 39 in 82. So unless we're hoping for a historically good team every year, a 40-point guy will be straddling the second and third lines, or getting a lot of PP time and really thriving there.

Couldn’t have said it better.

 

[DanielBrassard]

If our third or fourth line wing is putting up 40 points with any consistency, we might be a juggernaut. 40 points puts you in the top-40 of wingers (each side) in the NHL. So I think that's the thing--if he's putting up 40 points regularly he's probably not exclusively on the third or fourth line.

40 points is low-end second line, high-end 3rd line production. Depending on PP time.

This is basically what I was saying but you elaborated on it better than I did.

 

[Edge]

Blues had 4 forwards put up 40 points or more.

Not saying it's a bad thing.

But on a team that is looking at some combination of Kakko, Kravtsov, Zibanejad, Chytil, Buch, etc., I don't think a 15-20 goal, 40 point Lemiuex is what we're looking for from a second line winger.

 

[Edge]

The juggernaut Lightning had 7. They had 8 that probably would have if they played all 82. One guy had 39 in 82. So unless we're hoping for a historically good team every year, a 40-point guy will be straddling the second and third lines, or getting a lot of PP time and really thriving there.

I think that's exactly what we're looking for in the 2020s.

 

[nyr2k2]

I think that's exactly what we're looking for in the 2020s.

Well, we can look for it, but it's exceedingly difficult to do. Tampa scored like 40 more goals than everyone else. They scored as many goals as the '88 Oilers. Things may be trending up in terms of goals, but it's gradual. 40 points on the third line is not going to be the norm anytime soon, unless goals jump back to mid-70's numbers.

 

[McRanger]

Blues had 4 forwards put up 40 points or more.

Top 10 teams in scoring in 18-19

Tampa - 7 forwards with 40+ points, 6 with 45+, 3 with 50+ points
Calgary - 5 forwards with 40+ points, 5 with 45+, 4 with 50+ points
San Jose - 7 forwards with 40+ points, 7 with 45+, 7 with 50+ points
Toronto - 7 forwards with 40+ points, 3 with 45+, 3 with 50+ points
Washing. - 7 forwards with 40+ points, 6 with 45+, 4 with 50+ points
Pittsburgh - 4 forwards with 40+ points, 4 with 45+, 4 with 50+ points
Winnipeg - 5 forwards with 40+ points, 4 with 45+, 4 with 50+ points
Chicago - 5 forwards with 40+ points, 5 with 45+, 4 with 50+ points
Florida - 4 forwards with 40+ points, 4 with 45+, 4 with 50+ points
Colorado - 5 forwards with 40+ points, 4 with 45+, 3 with 50+ points

Just a guess, but teams having high 30's to low 40s points on their 2nd line is probably more common that not.

Only so many points (and so much PP time) to go around.

 

[Boris Zubov]

Sorry to disagree...I think Steve Vickers was best to don that number.

Nothing to disagree about. I never said Walt was the best to wear the number, I was simply working backwards from Darren Turcotte.

 

[True Blue]

Lemieux likes to crash the net. He uses that strength and tenacity and decent speed to win the battles in front and in the corners. I think he's generally going to be a guy who finishes with more goals than assists, like he has done in his OHL and AHL careers to date (using the good shot he has). I think he'll be like a 20-10 or 20-15 guy, somewhere in that range. I don't think he has the creativity and awareness to post 20+ assists on any kind of regular basis, and honestly setting other guys up is not his game. He can be like a mid-career, poor-man's Holmstrom or something. Who can also beat your ass.

And that's where I think some people are missing on him. He can score at even strength and does have good hands. If the point is not to overpass on the perimeter, I think that he can cause havoc in front of the net a la Holmstrom. His body type will not be that easy to move. He can be an asset on the PP.

 

[True Blue]

I did not state that Lemieux was going to be a career 4th liner. I merely pointed out his production thus far has been that of a 4th liner and I only pointed that out as I misinterpreted what the poster was saying.

His production was not really that much different from Chytil's and mainly on the 4th line.

 

[Edge]

Well, we can look for it, but it's exceedingly difficult to do. Tampa scored like 40 more goals than everyone else. They scored as many goals as the '88 Oilers. Things may be trending up in terms of goals, but it's gradual. 40 points on the third line is not going to be the norm anytime soon, unless goals jump back to mid-70's numbers.

Top 10 teams in scoring in 18-19

Tampa - 7 forwards with 40+ points, 6 with 45+, 3 with 50+ points
Calgary - 5 forwards with 40+ points, 5 with 45+, 4 with 50+ points
San Jose - 7 forwards with 40+ points, 7 with 45+, 7 with 50+ points
Toronto - 7 forwards with 40+ points, 3 with 45+, 3 with 50+ points
Washing. - 7 forwards with 40+ points, 6 with 45+, 4 with 50+ points
Pittsburgh - 4 forwards with 40+ points, 4 with 45+, 4 with 50+ points
Winnipeg - 5 forwards with 40+ points, 4 with 45+, 4 with 50+ points
Chicago - 5 forwards with 40+ points, 5 with 45+, 4 with 50+ points
Florida - 4 forwards with 40+ points, 4 with 45+, 4 with 50+ points
Colorado - 5 forwards with 40+ points, 4 with 45+, 3 with 50+ points

Just a guess, but teams having high 30's to low 40s points on their 2nd line is probably more common that not.

Only so many points (and so much PP time) to go around.

Also important to keep in mind that raw totals don't account for injuries and other factors.

But when you look at what the Rangers have/may have/ are aiming for, it also points to model designed after the teams at the top of that list (which includes 1/3 of the league BTW).

For example, right now, without any knowledge of further moves, the Rangers already have two wingers on the roster who scored at better than a 40 point pace. That doesn't include one that they shipped out, one potential free agent target, and two rookies whose upside is higher than 40 points. So without any squinting, on a team that finished in the bottom 10, we already have three guys on the wings from last season who would surpass 40 point plateau we're talking about, and two of our top prospects who are expected to do the same sooner rather than later.

However, in the 30-40 point range we see Namestnikov, Strome, and Vesey. I think that general range (between 30-40) is about what right when we consider guys who are playing on the third line more often than not.

 

[Maximus]

I'll be happy if Lemieux can be a disturbing third line player who pops in 15-20 goals, and 40 points.

Myself as well tho not sure Lemieux has 40 point potential from what I've seen of him...not sure he's a good enough skater tho he has some nice hands.

That said, I could certainly see Antoine Roussel like 25-30 points with 100+ PIMS worth of sandpaper from him with 3rd line type minutes which would make him tremendously valuable for this team which needs someone of Lemieux's ilk around.

Just a hunch but when all is said and done and the "rebuild" ultimately comes to a conclusion and the team is in that consistent Cup contender status we all feel we'll be in a few years, I have a strong suspicion that we here in Rangerland will look back at the acquisition of Lemieux as one of the top moves Gorton ended up having made.

 

[Maximus]

Sorry to disagree...I think Steve Vickers was best to don that number.

Bingo!. It's really not even close either as to who was the greatest Ranger to wear the #8.

I'm admittedly am a bit biased seeing Vickers was my favorite Ranger when he came up as a rookie back in 1973. For those of you young turks who never saw Vickers play...tho not as big as him...think Corey Perry when Perry was good 8-10 years ago. That was Vickers. Besides being a terrific skilled player, my boy could fight too.

Vickers also had a well earned reputation back than to not f*** with him and so guys like Dave Schultz, Terry O'Reilly, Don Saleski and any of the other bad asses from back in the day would all back off and not mess with Vickers.

He was a hell of a player and a hell of a Ranger and Vickers should be given some consideration to get his # put up in the rafters. I mean I love me some Gravey don't get me wrong but if Graves # is up in the rafters, it shouldn't so far fetched for Vickers to be considered as well. But that's a thread for another day...lol

 

[NJRangers35]

might be a dumb question, but can someone compare trouba and mcdonagh for me. i know they are different style players, but in his prime, i thought mcdonagh was a number 1 defenseman who you could win a cup with as your number 1. is trouba that caliber of player?

anyone?

 

[Mandar]

Bingo!. It's really not even close either as to who was the greatest Ranger to wear the #8.

I'm admittedly am a bit biased seeing Vickers was my favorite Ranger when he came up as a rookie back in 1973. For those of you young turks who never saw Vickers play...tho not as big as him...think Corey Perry when Perry was good 8-10 years ago. That was Vickers. Besides being a terrific skilled player, my boy could fight too.

Vickers also had a well earned reputation back than to not **** with him and so guys like Dave Schultz, Terry O'Reilly, Don Saleski and any of the other bad asses from back in the day would all back off and not mess with Vickers.

He was a hell of a player and a hell of a Ranger and Vickers should be given some consideration to get his # put up in the rafters. I mean I love me some Gravey don't get me wrong but if Graves # is up in the rafters, it shouldn't so far fetched for Vickers to be considered as well. But that's a thread for another day...lol

He was also the person that replaced Vic Hadfield on the GAG line, and was the first winger to play with Hedberg & Nilsson.

He set up right above the crease, and banged in lots of goals from his "office".

One bad thing though....if anyone remembers the 1975 OT goal against us when the isles eliminated us, it was all due to Vickers giving the puck away in our own corner....only took 11 seconds, and it was over.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

anyone?

Well, "a RH pre-injury McDonagh" was my comp for him, so my whole point was that they are fairly similar.

That said, if I had to pick a couple of differences in terms of style of play, I'd say he's got a bit more snarl, a little less dangle. But again, I think they're very similar.

 

[DanielBrassard]

anyone?

I don't think Trouba has shown he is at the level McDonagh was at but he is certainly a top-pairing defenseman at worst IMO. McDonagh was IMO top-10 at his best.

 

[Edge]

Myself as well tho not sure Lemieux has 40 point potential from what I've seen of him...not sure he's a good enough skater tho he has some nice hands.

That said, I could certainly see Antoine Roussel like 25-30 points with 100+ PIMS worth of sandpaper from him with 3rd line type minutes which would make him tremendously valuable for this team which needs someone of Lemieux's ilk around.

Just a hunch but when all is said and done and the "rebuild" ultimately comes to a conclusion and the team is in that consistent Cup contender status we all feel we'll be in a few years, I have a strong suspicion that we here in Rangerland will look back at the acquisition of Lemieux as one of the top moves Gorton ended up having made.

I could see 30-40, which is why I said I would be happy with the higher end of that.

I agree that I'm not quite sure some of the other attributes are there to push him into that next tier/level offensively, but I also agree that he can be tremendously valuable.

 

[nyr2k2]

Also important to keep in mind that raw totals don't account for injuries and other factors.

But when you look at what the Rangers have/may have/ are aiming for, it also points to model designed after the teams at the top of that list (which includes 1/3 of the league BTW).

For example, right now, without any knowledge of further moves, the Rangers already have two wingers on the roster who scored at better than a 40 point pace. That doesn't include one that they shipped out, one potential free agent targets, and two rookies whose upside is higher than 40 points. So without any squinting, on a team that finished in the bottom 10, we already have three guys on the wings from last season who would surpass 40 point plateau we're talking about, and two of our top prospects who are expected to do the same sooner rather than later.

However, in the 30-40 point range we see Namestnikov, Strome, and Vesey. I think that general range (between 30-40) is about what right when we consider guys who are playing on the third line more often than not.

I get it. I mentioned guys on pace for 40 points if they played all the games, guys getting significant PP time, etc. Plenty of variables to consider, for sure. It's also worth considering that Namestnikov, Vesey, and Strome all played up in the lineup for extended periods--particularly Vesey. If Jimmy Vesey plays exclusively on the third line of a decent team, does he put up the 35 points he did last season? I'd wager not. Same for Namestnikov. Strome only did what he did because he shot 25% or whatever.

All of these things happen and will happen with other players moving forward, but my point is/was that if you're consistently putting up 40 points on a non-trash team, you're going to need to be getting PP time or playing up in the lineup quite often. Or, you're going to have to be on a f***ing juggernaut like Tampa, the likes of which do not exist most years. If we have Kreider, Kakko, Buchnevich, Chytil, Kravtsov, and some other unknown guy putting up 40+ points on the wing and getting most of the PP TOI, I just can't see a guy like Lemieux having the opportunities to get there. Not unless we have a Jordan Staal situation with an elite 3C or something.

 

[Edge]

I don't think Trouba has shown he is at the level McDonagh was at but he is certainly a top-pairing defenseman at worst IMO. McDonagh was IMO top-10 at his best.

Honestly, if that's what he gives us, and we can surround him with a healthier, better supporting cast than we did with McD, I'm happy.

 

[Edge]

I get it. I mentioned guys on pace for 40 points if they played all the games, guys getting significant PP time, etc. Plenty of variables to consider, for sure. It's also worth considering that Namestnikov, Vesey, and Strome all played up in the lineup for extended periods--particularly Vesey. If Jimmy Vesey plays exclusively on the third line of a decent team, does he put up the 35 points he did last season? I'd wager not. Same for Namestnikov. Strome only did what he did because he shot 25% or whatever.

All of these things happen and will happen with other players moving forward, but my point is/was that if you're consistently putting up 40 points on a non-trash team, you're going to need to be getting PP time or playing up in the lineup quite often. Or, you're going to have to be on a ****ing juggernaut like Tampa, the likes of which do not exist most years. If we have Kreider, Kakko, Buchnevich, Chytil, Kravtsov, and some other unknown guy putting up 40+ points on the wing and getting most of the PP TOI, I just can't see a guy like Lemieux having the opportunities to get there. Not unless we have a Jordan Staal situation with an elite 3C or something.

I guess at the end of the day, I tend to view the 40 as the higher-end, which is why I said I'd be happy with that. It very well could be 30-40, so some of it is splitting hairs.

But I also freely admit that the whole "line" thing is something I tend to avoid and have for many years. It's very much about combinations. Jagr often played on Pittsburgh's "second" line with Ron Francis, that doesn't make him a second line player. Likewise Rob Brown flanked Mario for a number of years, and no one cites him as a typical first line player.

With the Rangers, Lemieux could very well play on a second line if it balances the other players they roll out there. Likewise Kravtsov could very well spend his Rangers career being rolled out behind Kakko. So I view it as something that's fluid.

 

[Rongomania]

I could see 30-40, which is why I said I would be happy with the higher end of that.

I agree that I'm not quite sure some of the other attributes are there to push him into that next tier/level offensively, but I also agree that he can be tremendously valuable.

BL is so interesting because he's kind of a wildcard to predict. This season will certainly be interesting to watch, he knows he has the chance to staple himself to this lineup for years, I'm pulling for him big time. Love what he brings. He and Tony, once they get to the PO's will be a straight up nightmare for opponents. Can't wait.